Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am perhaps more than aware from very early involvement (60's) in the design and manufacture of suppressors for two particular firearms I previously described, as to their effectiveness at noise reduction and given no design requirements other than sound suppression without any restrictions as to size, they could, at least on bolt actions, completely silence the rifle, but you wouldn't want to carry the things for a day of hunting.
I'd like to see the actual test of that. Lowering the sound level by 120-130 db...yeah, please link us up the proof of that suppressor test.
Here's a test of chaining 6x .308 suppressors together, and getting the sound down to 123-125db:
Maybe a subsonic 22 rimfire with an absurd suppressor, but you are still making noise in the easily audible range.
But if you have the design/spec/proof of completely silencing a supersonic 308 round, I'd love to see it.
Ever set off a center fire rifle or pistol caliber in your home in the middle of the night to stop an intruder? After the first shot, you are blind from the muzzle blast, and deaf depending on the firearm. A suppressed pistol, or carbine firing a subsonic, heavy round would be excellent for home defense.
Wait Mr. Intruder, let me just get my ear protection before I shoot.
So your range does use an alternate system of alert which supports my point of voice commands not being as effective.
You also support my point of them "substantially" reducing noise levels.
Liking them is fine, no one is arguing that point at all.
This all started with my rebuttal to the suggestion they should be unregulated simply BECAUSE they allow shouted range orders to be heard above shooting and my point being "well run ranges do not rely upon shouted commands only."
As to your final comment about not seeing an uptick, that would yet remain to be seen if restrictions were removed, would it not?
I further embellished my point by suggesting the increased availability to all and sundry would trickle down to the guy wanting to kill as many as possible without being interrupted: Quote"How the criminals and mentally deranged would love this. Boy they could shoot up an entire school, room by room with each classroom being none the wiser until it was their turn in the barrel. Deranged husbands walking into wife's place of employment and emptying a full mag before the phones going unanswered brings someone to see whassup with the back office."
I'm happy, with your experience as a RSO, you've confirmed at least two of my points.
It appears I misunderstood the gist of your post. Thanks for clarifying and sorry for the confusion. No, our range had no sound amplification equipment at all, though it had been discussed. We all had personal radio communication though. We used three lighting switches located centrally on the wall behind. Two turned off all the downrange lights and the remaining lit up the whole in red light. Very effective. The few times we had to use it, people instantly stopped whatever they were doing and were like, WTF just happened? LOL. I was there part time for a bit under three years until my back got the best of me.
My one experience with our system was when I saw what looked like a flare shot downrange. It was still sputtering down there in the shredded tire rubber as I started walking over to the shooter’s booth but before I got there, a fire started down range. I reversed direction to the switches while yelling “Cease”fire!” with my walky-radio on. I was proud to see how fast our response was. I had the line just vacated when two guys burst through the door, told them what happened, one grabbed the extinguisher as the other vaulted over the shooting benches, got the extinguisher hand off and made it down and put out the fire before it spread any at all. Someone had gotten through the front check with .30 cal. tracer rounds for his M1 Carbine (we never figured out how that happened unless they were deliberately concealed). Our berm rubber has a flame retardant treatment but apparently that’s not enough to stop a tracer round burning away in direct contact. Exciting times! LOL.
Regarding whether legalizing unrestricted purchase of suppressors would increase violence, I was mainly referring to the sales of the ones already occurring. Granted, these are by definition law abiding people but that’s the whole point; law abiding people exceedingly rarely contribute to violent crime by definition so sales of such devices to them have would presumably have no affect on crime. Those inclined to violence will probably not let the availability of a suppressor influence their decisions. Admitted though, something of an academic point.
There is reasoned response that I cannot dispute. And no I would not care to make that wager under todays regulations making it tougher to own them HOWEVER, if they become totally deregulated, I would like the ability to apply a rain check.
You are correct; I've focused entirely on the premise being made that suppressors should be de-regulated due to their being a "safety enhancement" but did so only in the context of lack of the alternative idea of them being useful in increasing "stealth" given equal weighting.
We both know the undisputed 'genesis' for suppressor development in the first place.
I am perhaps more than aware from very early involvement (60's) in the design and manufacture of suppressors for two particular firearms I previously described, as to their effectiveness at noise reduction and given no design requirements other than sound suppression without any restrictions as to size, they could, at least on bolt actions, completely silence the rifle, but you wouldn't want to carry the things for a day of hunting.
I fully appreciate the points made applying to private owners who simply want to reduce the noise while sport shooting. Especially those on private home style ranges with limited attendance where total legal responsibility is carried totally by the said private landowner.
You cannot silence the sound of breaking the sound barrier, at least not yet.
I'd like to see the actual test of that. Lowering the sound level by 120-130 db...yeah, please link us up the proof of that suppressor test.
Here's a test of chaining 6x .308 suppressors together, and getting the sound down to 123-125db:
Maybe a subsonic 22 rimfire with an absurd suppressor, but you are still making noise in the easily audible range.
But if you have the design/spec/proof of completely silencing a supersonic 308 round, I'd love to see it.
Nowhere did I say it had been done. I also said that we had achieved remarkable results back in 62 while testing on two particular firearms that were both blowback/recoil operated auto/semi-auto. firearms. We kept building them bigger and more complex while achieving stepped down noise levels with each increase in size. Eventually they got so cumbersome so as to be ridiculous for purpose.
I believe I also said or suggested, there would be a volumetric capacity requirement so as to make of the thing impossible to carry and impractical for any usage at all other than stationary. Bolt actions leave only one avenue for sound escape and it's far easier to address that one avenue than the blow-back issue tied to round ejection and bolt cycling.
Stop attributing to me things unsaid.
This all started out at the Longbranch location due to test bullets needing collection for purposes of groove impression analysis at various cartridge loading of the venerable .303 Lee Enfield to determine optimum charge load versus land depth of rifling to avoid "skidding" of bullet. They were firing those rounds with muzzle inserted into long hardwood boxes containing cotton batting or mattress ticking and noticed the noise was insignificant. Other noise reduction research was being done by other arsenals in other countries but sharing of data was not a requirement of the day.
Now lets explore the design of a suppressor that allows for the FULL volumetric capacity of expanding gases PRIOR to the round exiting the chamber of the suppressor. Ganging a bunch of suppressors together that have already had design limitations of diameter/length, ergo; volumetric capacity, placed upon them simply cannot stop noise exiting along with the bullet.
We have entered into an argument of absolutes whereas this has never been about absolutes but about suppressing the noise of a firearm so as to make it a stealthy enough firearm to avoid early alarm.
Once again; the original design requirement causing the birth of the suppressor had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the shooters hearing or allowing voice commands to be heard above shooting. It was ALL about making the firearm more stealthy to void detection so as to parallel bolt guns but with better ballistics etc.,
Why focus on the one weak or vulnerable comment about hearing the range officer, and not the more important aspect of suppressors?
Frankly, I think this should be addressed as a safety issue, as sound is reduced to more tolerable ranges with suppressors.
But leftist kooks, including Hillary think they are like what Hollywood portrays them as, a silencer used to assassinations.
Show and others undoubtedly think if they became legal as sorts of law abiding citizens would go on silent killing sprees.
Just like job site hearing protection is required, so should suppressors be available to the general public for hearing protection.
Here is one in action for a .50 caliber rifle. Without it double hearing protection would be needed (plugs/muffs) just to prevent hearing damage.
Hillary Clinton made a really good point about gun silencers in connection with the Las Vegas mass shooting.
No Hillary Clinton just showed her ignorance on that subject indicated that she really did not know anything about suppressors. Rounds that break the speed of sound like a rife round will would still be heard.
It appears I misunderstood the gist of your post. Thanks for clarifying and sorry for the confusion. No, our range had no sound amplification equipment at all, though it had been discussed. We all had personal radio communication though. We used three lighting switches located centrally on the wall behind. Two turned off all the downrange lights and the remaining lit up the whole in red light. Very effective. The few times we had to use it, people instantly stopped whatever they were doing and were like, WTF just happened? LOL. I was there part time for a bit under three years until my back got the best of me.
My one experience with our system was when I saw what looked like a flare shot downrange. It was still sputtering down there in the shredded tire rubber as I started walking over to the shooter’s booth but before I got there, a fire started down range. I reversed direction to the switches while yelling “Cease”fire!” with my walky-radio on. I was proud to see how fast our response was. I had the line just vacated when two guys burst through the door, told them what happened, one grabbed the extinguisher as the other vaulted over the shooting benches, got the extinguisher hand off and made it down and put out the fire before it spread any at all. Someone had gotten through the front check with .30 cal. tracer rounds for his M1 Carbine (we never figured out how that happened unless they were deliberately concealed). Our berm rubber has a flame retardant treatment but apparently that’s not enough to stop a tracer round burning away in direct contact. Exciting times! LOL.
Regarding whether legalizing unrestricted purchase of suppressors would increase violence, I was mainly referring to the sales of the ones already occurring. Granted, these are by definition law abiding people but that’s the whole point; law abiding people exceedingly rarely contribute to violent crime by definition so sales of such devices to them have would presumably have no affect on crime. Those inclined to violence will probably not let the availability of a suppressor influence their decisions. Admitted though, something of an academic point.
Whoa! Sopmeone actually "smuggled" tracer rounds onto a range. Now that's got to be the silliest example of going to a lot of trouble just to be spotlighted as soon as they're shot off.
The light set-up and your clubs discipline seems really first rate. I've shot at ranges years ago where they had rotating beacons like the bubblegum machines on the old cop-cars. When they were active everyone was behind a safety line.
Your points regarding the 'have" or "have not" aspect of suppressor availability are acceptable but would need time testing to show up one way or the other. It's the mass shooter I keep dwelling on as the guy who yesterday was a legal non-criminal owner but goes off the rails like the Vegas guy and avails himself of a cheap azz bump-stock to ramp up cycle time on an AR.
You cannot silence the sound of breaking the sound barrier, at least not yet.
That’s true but it’s the reason that so many sub-sonic rounds have become available and popular (e.g. .300 Blackout). Ammo manufacturers are catering to a growing suppressor market.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
